Posted on 03/13/2006 10:30:42 AM PST by Wolfstar
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - An angry federal judge considered Monday whether to dismiss the government's death penalty case against confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui after a federal attorney coached witnesses in violation of her rules.
"I do not want to act precipitously," U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in scheduling a special hearing on the case Tuesday, but she said that it was "very difficult for this case to go forward."
Brinkema said a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration sent e-mail to seven Federal Aviation Administration officials outlining the prosecution's opening statements and providing commentary on government witnesses from the first day of testimony. That was in violation of her pretrial order barring witnesses from exposure to any opening statements or trial testimony.
"An attorney for the TSA ... egregiously breached that order," she told jurors before excusing them until Wednesday. Of the seven, three were to testify for the government and four were potential defense witnesses.
Government officials identified the attorney as Carla Martin.
Brinkema wanted to hear Tuesday from the seven and from the attorney who contacted them to help her decide whether to throw out the government's case. If she does, Moussaoui would escape the possibility of execution and be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole.
She said the rule against witnesses hearing testimony in advance is "a very important protection of the truth-seeking process."
Moussaoui appeared bemused as the lawyers debated how to proceed. Leaving the courtroom, he said, "The show must go on."
The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial after the government informed the judge and the defense over the weekend of the attorney's contact.
"This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant and more importantly the integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States in the context of a death case," Brinkema told lawyers outside the presence of the jury.
Defense attorney Edward MacMahon moved to have the judge dismiss the death penalty as a possible outcome, saying "this is not going to be a fair trial." In the alternative, he said, at least she should excuse the government's FAA witnesses from the case.
Prosecutor David Novak replied that removing the FAA witnesses would "exclude half the government's case." Novak suggested instead that the problem could be fixed by a vigorous cross-examination by the defense.
But Brinkema said she would need time to study what to do.
"In all the years I've been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses," she said.
He should have been tried by a military tribunal.
Life in prison is the alternative.
Sounds like the virgins will have to wait.
Paging Sec. Norm Mineta....
FGS....!
Great. Just great.
absolutely right, this case never should have been in civilian court. he's not some perp who just robbed a 7-11, he's an enemy combatant.
Life in general population on the pea farm tending the hogs.
Sentence him to life in New York City. See how long he lasts.
What the hell? ping.
U.S. District Court Judge.
Nominated by President Bill Clinton.
Entered duty 10/23/93
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about legal ramifications, but I am an adult. And part of being an adult is to fulfill your obligations and act truthfully. A lawyer in this case broke the rules - rules that were known and understood before the violation occured. That lawyer acted irresponsibly and deceitfully and deserves our scorn. Yet most people will dismiss that lawyer's flagrant transgression and say that the legal system is broken because a murderer may get life instead of death because of a "technicality". In reality, the legal system is not the culprit - a dishonest lawyer is.
Appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993, when he had a Dem congress and would have pushed his most liberal appointees.
Who is this boneheaded attorney? It would seem to me that witness coaching would be the first thing they teach you NOT to do in law school.
Who cares? This judge could've been appointed by Ming the Merciless, and if this story is true it wouldn't matter one bit.
Woops. Now that's what I call being part of the problem, and not the solution.
"Who cares? This judge could've been appointed by Ming the Merciless, and if this story is true it wouldn't matter one bit."
Agreed. Before anyone starts blaming the judge, they should take a look at the attorney's actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.